Cure for cancer

[CA renter]

[quote=spdrun]Plenty of scientists work at pure science out of curiosity or for the betterment of humanity.[/quote]

Absolutely.

If I had to choose between two doctors, and one was in it purely for the money while the other was in it because of a love for science and a strong desire to help humankind, I would choose the second doctor every single time.

[FlyerInHi]

Knowledge wealth is like material wealth. You don’t have to share it if you don’t want.

Say bill Gates made $100 billion creating software that lots of people use, but that’s obviously not essential to life.

Is it out this realm that someone who has a cure for cancer should make $1 trillion? Of course, he would have a captive maket of patients who will pay anything for that cure. Either that or die.

And that brings about the issue of equity and who should pay. Cancer sufferers are a tiny minority of thr population. Why should wealth be redistributed away for all of us to them. They should pay their own way… Gee those leaches who feel entitled to good health (sarcasm intended).

[njtosd]

[quote=CA renter][quote=spdrun]Plenty of scientists work at pure science out of curiosity or for the betterment of humanity.[/quote]

Absolutely.

If I had to choose between two doctors, and one was in it purely for the money while the other was in it because of a love for science and a strong desire to help humankind, I would choose the second doctor every single time.[/quote]

I don’t think anything is “pure.” I’ve known a lot of scientists/doctors/etc. I can think of only one that was in it mostly for the betterment of society – plus he thought it was fun, which is also a selfish motivation. I also don’t think anyone is purely in it for the money or purely in it for the love of science. People are mosaics – everyone has mixed emotions (or at least normal ones do). If I had to choose between two doctors I would choose based on skill and training. I can get niceness from my family and friends. I want someone who will fix whatever might be wrong with me.

[jstoesz]

If people got paid less for medical breakthroughs, would we have more or fewer innovations?

[jeff303]

Wait… did OP lift this scenario from an episode of Family Guy? My wife and I are watching old episodes on Netflix and we just happened to play one that literally had this plot in it.

[joec]

I don’t have a problem with someone who finds a cure for cancer or some other disease if they became a billionaire. So many people are worth so much nowadays and since we need some money to survive, it’d be sad to see the father of the cure for cancer be on the street and broke…

More power to them if they can find the cure and they deserve the money since unfortunately, in society now, you need “some” money at least to live.

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]If people got paid less for medical breakthroughs, would we have more or fewer innovations?[/quote]

If we had “open source” medical/pharmaceutical R&D, would we have more medical breakthroughs than we do when almost everything of value is patented?

[CA renter]

[quote=njtosd]
I don’t think anything is “pure.” I’ve known a lot of scientists/doctors/etc. I can think of only one that was in it mostly for the betterment of society – plus he thought it was fun, which is also a selfish motivation. I also don’t think anyone is purely in it for the money or purely in it for the love of science. People are mosaics – everyone has mixed emotions (or at least normal ones do). If I had to choose between two doctors I would choose based on skill and training. I can get niceness from my family and friends. I want someone who will fix whatever might be wrong with me.[/quote]

True, but some are definitely more motivated by money than the will to do good, and vice versa. The goals and motivations of each is different (speaking of the opposite ends of the spectrum, with a drive for profit on one side, and the desire to help people on the other), and I would personally favor the one whose goal is to help their patients, irrespective of the profit motive. You’re right about there being a wide middle ground filled with people who are motivated by both, though.

[CA renter]

[quote=joec]I don’t have a problem with someone who finds a cure for cancer or some other disease if they became a billionaire. So many people are worth so much nowadays and since we need some money to survive, it’d be sad to see the father of the cure for cancer be on the street and broke…

More power to them if they can find the cure and they deserve the money since unfortunately, in society now, you need “some” money at least to live.[/quote]

To be sure, those who contribute greatly to medical science should be compensated well…but how much is too much? At what point does the right of a company to profit (and the executives and investors there) trump the right of a human being to live?

All too often, it’s not the individual researchers who make most of the money on these things. If they work for a company, it’s the company and the investors who make the bulk of the money.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]To be sure, those who contribute greatly to medical science should be compensated well…but how much is too much? At what point does the right of a company to profit (and the executives and investors there) trump the right of a human being to live?

All too often, it’s not the individual researchers who make most of the money on these things. If they work for a company, it’s the company and the investors who make the bulk of the money.[/quote]I’d say definitely more than AAPL as a company and more than Bill Gates as the father of the cure is a good start.

[no_such_reality]

.

[jstoesz]

[quote=CA renter]

To be sure, those who contribute greatly to medical science should be compensated well…but how much is too much? At what point does the right of a company to profit (and the executives and investors there) trump the right of a human being to live?

All too often, it’s not the individual researchers who make most of the money on these things. If they work for a company, it’s the company and the investors who make the bulk of the money.[/quote]

“…but how much is too much?”

haha, your thievery is laid bare. That is a question you ask regarding lots of things huh? When can you take what someone else has because they have too much of it?

“At what point does the right of a company to profit (and the executives and investors there) trump the right of a human being to live?”

These two things do not have to be in conflict. I am sure many companies would love to sell FDA unapproved or off label prescriptions, but the governmentment has made it illegal to do such. And to bring drugs through the process costs billions of dollars (4 billion last I read). Let us reframe that last question…

“At what point does the general populaces desire for only and restricted to government sactioned medical products trump the right of a human being to live?”

To avoid the previous moral dilemma, you would prefer theft.

[spdrun]

There exists a concept of reasonable profit as exemplified in anti-gouging and anti-trust laws. Also, like it or not, eminent domain has been a long-established practice.

We haven’t had a pure capitalist society since … well … 1620 or so.

[no_such_reality]

[quote] From Wikipedia:
Salk became ambitious for his own lab and was finally granted one at the University of Pittsburgh. However, he was disappointed. The lab they had given him was much smaller than he had hoped and the university forced him to conform to many rules which stunted his research as a beginning virologist.[25]

In 1948, Harry Weaver, the director of research at the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP), which later became known as the March of Dimes, contacted Salk. He asked Salk to join the fight against polio and research/confirm how many polio types there were. At the time, scientists had discovered three; they wanted to know if there were any more types. Although this type of polio research would be repetitious, boring, and time-consuming, the National Foundation agreed to pay for additional space, equipment and researchers. Once the research was finished, Salk would be able to keep the facilities and continue his previous work.

Because Salk desperately needed space, he joined the fight. For the first year, he gathered supplies and researchers. Dr. Julius Youngner, Byron Bennett, Dr. L. James Lewis and secretary Lorraine Friedman joined Salk’s team as well.[26] Youngner remembers this period:
[/quote]

Obviously done for the joy of science.

BTW, the March of Dimes spent the equivalent of about $3 Billion 2013 dollars on treatment and research of Polio from the 1930s to 1955.

[CA renter]

[quote=no_such_reality][quote] From Wikipedia:
Salk became ambitious for his own lab and was finally granted one at the University of Pittsburgh. However, he was disappointed. The lab they had given him was much smaller than he had hoped and the university forced him to conform to many rules which stunted his research as a beginning virologist.[25]

In 1948, Harry Weaver, the director of research at the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (NFIP), which later became known as the March of Dimes, contacted Salk. He asked Salk to join the fight against polio and research/confirm how many polio types there were. At the time, scientists had discovered three; they wanted to know if there were any more types. Although this type of polio research would be repetitious, boring, and time-consuming, the National Foundation agreed to pay for additional space, equipment and researchers. Once the research was finished, Salk would be able to keep the facilities and continue his previous work.

Because Salk desperately needed space, he joined the fight. For the first year, he gathered supplies and researchers. Dr. Julius Youngner, Byron Bennett, Dr. L. James Lewis and secretary Lorraine Friedman joined Salk’s team as well.[26] Youngner remembers this period:
[/quote]

Obviously done for the joy of science.

BTW, the March of Dimes spent the equivalent of about $3 Billion 2013 dollars on treatment and research of Polio from the 1930s to 1955.[/quote]

He wanted more space in which to do his research. How is that related to patents or profits?

[Author]

Posts